Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
hardcore_gamer

Can your system handle the next gen?

Recommended Posts

It came to my head while waching some footage from crysis: Well the game looks great on a super computer that next to none of us own, but how many will really be able to play the bloody game?

So i just decided to ask! Here are the ASSUMED specs for crysis created by crysis-online.com

Minimum Requirements
CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600 or ATI X1600 - Shader Model 2.0
RAM: 1GB
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9 with Windows XP / Vista


Recommended Requirements
CPU: Dual-Core CPU (Athlon X2 / Pentium D / Core 2 Duo)
Graphics: Nvidia 7800GT or ATI X1800XL Pro (SM 3.0)
RAM: 1.5GB+
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 512k+ (128k+ upstream)
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9 with Windows XP / Vista

When i see those specs i always end up thinking like: hmmmmmmm.....i wander how many people that buy the game will really get those great visuals people are talking about.....assuming the can even run the thing.

Well i don't know, but i can tell you one thing:if want to really
feel the next gen games like crysis and all of those super great visuals people are talking about you are bound to have to upgrade
your system unless you have a powerful pc. So just how many people here think they can RUN next gen titles without a upgrade, i don't think it will be allot people.

Share this post


Link to post

It's not that expensive you know.

new motherboard
Amd Athlon 5200
2gb ddr2 ram
geforce 8800GTS 320mb

Along with a zalman class heatsink and a new antec power supply that's only about $900 still, and you can probably get it cheaper elsewhere than newegg.

Share this post


Link to post

Im still good (Looks at AlienWare):P
Blackfish is right, a gaming box these days is rather cheap, depending on your financial status... I spent a little over $1000 total on mine.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd say a more appropriate question is: Do you want your system to handle the next gen? I really doubt they'll be bringing out any revolutionary games that would be must to play. I'd rather stick to playing Doom and other classics than waste that ~1000$ on a pro gaming rig to play halfassed next gen games.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with you to a point, I hope they come out with some cool games or else I have wasted money :P But I have faith in game designers (not sure if its a good idea:P) but still a hard core PC gamer, always will be...

Share this post


Link to post

The specs don't look particularly excessive to me. Hell, I've got the minimum specs covered on this 4.5 year old, but slightly upgraded, machine that I'm typing on now. Of course, it really kicked ass 4 years ago. :)

Share this post


Link to post

$1000 IS a shitload of money. I don't know if you guys get liquid gold from tap or live with your parents, but $1000 is like a month's pay for me and 80% of that goes to bills. So that would be nearly a year of saving, barring any emergency situations....and there's always an emergency situation. :(

Share this post


Link to post

Probably not, but who cares? I'm happy with Doom, Postal 2, and flight sims :-)

Share this post


Link to post

Maes said:
Postal 2

Dude, that game made laugh till I cryed, after a bad day at work it was the best!!! Good to see some one else who plays it!
Heh, cats on shot guns... :P

Share this post


Link to post

I probably can run it, got a dual core intel as my main pc but Im not really interested in anything new just now. As long as I can play the latest 'need for speed' games Im happy. Ive not even installed Doom 3 on this PC (it is on my old XP box) so I dont know if it works under Vista.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey, cool. I had recommended requirement BEFORE I upgraded. Except for the dual-core CPU.

Share this post


Link to post

I just upgraded my video card so I can get around to playing HL2, FarCry, Riddick, etc.

Crysis and Bioshock? Ask me in 3-4 years. I don't feel a great need to spend lots on money to play bug-ridden new releases.

Share this post


Link to post

There are many companies on todays video game market that knows it is both possible and quite prudent to stay behind the technology curve.

Case in point: Blizzard. Love them or hate them, they are arguably one of the most successful game developers this day.

With the exception of the first Diablo the technology they use have all been tried and true, perhaps even dated stuff.

Starcraft stayed with old-fashioned sprites while the rest of the biz were racing headlong into the graphics card assisted 3d-age. Warcraft 3 and World of Warcraft both chose a deliberate "cartoonish" style in order to reduce polygon usage and reduce the demand for advanced lighting.

Result: Their games were all massively adopted by the buying public because nearly every game had a rig capable of handling them. This is especially important in regard to their success among the new south-asian middle class.


Another reason not to ride the bleeding edge is the demand on the various designers and artists responsible for creating the content to match the game engine.
This has led to the somewhat sad trend within FPS'es where the games get steadily shorter and more railroaded because the developers does not have time and resources to map out extensive worlds to match the bloated specs.

Or, another example, why do so many people still map for Doom? Because Doom mapping is relatively easy to get into and a Doom map can be made or worked on in your spare time without requiring extreme dedication or an education as a computer graphics artist. Every averagely computer literate person could potentially get into Doom mapping.


Finally developers can use more time to develop compelling art and settings and genuinely fun game mechanics, and can be more daring in doing so, because they don't have to sink resources into learning new advanced tech and use copious hours doing bloated resource files such as high-polygon photorealistic models.

Look at the wealth of titles put out for the handheld consoles such as PSP and DS as well as the "quirky" console Wii. We have stuff such as "Phoenix Wright: Ace Attourney" an excellent idea, masterfully executed, but possessing outright primitive graphics. Or LocoRoco, arguably the cutest video game ever (and one of the best soundtracks ever).

Meanwhile those working with the newest tech produce formulaic FPS'es and RTS'es Cutscene-whore Final Fantasy episodes and bad Hollywood tie-ins.



So by sticking with yesterdays tech you are more likely to get games with:

A large following, important for multiplayer games and is a factor in their longevity.
More focus on content, potentially longer games, with more potential fan-made content. Better, more thought out content.
More "daring" games willing to challenge the genre status quo.
More focus of straight ahead gameplay. IE, streamlined deathmatch-FPS'es, good, ol' arcadey fun, strategy games with a focus on strategy.

And finally, you don't need to rely on going out and blowing your money on the latest graphics card all the time.

Share this post


Link to post

Can my everyday system handle this game's minimum requirements?

CPU: No (more like hell no)
Graphics: No (by a long shot)
RAM: No (not even 1/2 that)
HDD: Yes (I recently had a cleanup)
Internet: Yes (but not in the "1st world")
Optical Drive: Yes (though it's old)
Software: No (the OS fails)

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

CPU: No (more like hell no)
Graphics: No (by a long shot)
RAM: No (not even 1/2 that)
HDD: Yes (I recently had a cleanup)
Internet: Yes (but not in the "1st world")
Optical Drive: Yes (though it's old)
Software: No (the OS fails)

That's pretty much my case, though I'd have to clear about 4.5 gigs to meet the HDD requirements.

And as for the computer I'm currently on (not my own) the hard drive itself isn't half as big as the required space needed. And the disc drive never heard of a "DVD."


Danarchy said:

$1000 is like a month's pay for me and 80% of that goes to bills.

If you lived in Alaska, you'd be below the poverty line.

Share this post


Link to post

Danarchy, I have a good job as a carpenter, so 1000$ to me is really nothing... The I.T. industry sucked, so I left Datacore consulting and went back into my old trade. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Jesus sure knew a thing or two about financial security.

Share this post


Link to post

My older (not oldest) laptop meets the minimum requirements, and mostly meets the recommended ones, minus the processor (which is a straight up P4). My desktop, however, only meets the minimum.

Even so, not many next-gen PC titles really spark an interest, except for Gears of War and Quake Wars.

Share this post


Link to post
DJ_Haruko said:

My older (not oldest) laptop meets the minimum requirements, and mostly meets the recommended ones, minus the processor (which is a straight up P4). My desktop, however, only meets the minimum.

Even so, not many next-gen PC titles really spark an interest, except for Gears of War and Quake Wars.


Quake Wars is not really a next gen game as it uses a version of the doom3 engine but with megatextures. As for gears of war i have it on the xbox and it kicks ass! But will it play well on the pc......given how the pc port of rainbow six vegas went i would say no. Unless midway decides to work on the port instead of just dumping it on the market like was done with vegas.

Share this post


Link to post

AMD Sempron 3000+
1 gig of RAM
ATI Radeon 9600
80 gig HD
Windows XP

ph33r my awesome 1337 machine!!1 I know its last gen but I don't care as I don't have much interest in PC gaming. It plays what PC games I want it to and emulators fine, so I'm satisfied. The most I've considered doing is a slightly better video card but thats far from top priority for me right now. I'm gonna have to sometime before UT3 comes out though, because I do quite like UT.

Share this post


Link to post

If you buy the parts seperately, it is usually lots cheaper than to buy the equivalent with a full new computer, but you risk incompatibility.

Captain Red said:
Hey I got recommended specs for Crysis? that means I should run Bioshock REALLY well.

Here's the system requirements for Bioshock
I would expect similar U3 engine games to have around those system requirements.

leileilol said:
so far Quake Wars is the funnest best batch of these 07 games, for me at least

Yeah I agree too, the beta is loads of fun and convinced me to buy the game. I can't wait to try the UT3 demo and Crysis (well FarCry did) and see how they play as well as run on the comp.

Share this post


Link to post
Stealthy Ivan said:

Dude, that game made laugh till I cryed, after a bad day at work it was the best!!! Good to see some one else who plays it!
Heh, cats on shot guns... :P


If you have the Apocalypse Weekend expansion, check out the AW7 mod. It lets you play through all 7 days, and features lots of new weapons and special challenges.

Share this post


Link to post
Doom Dude said:

I'll be able to run it. The question is, will I want to?

Are you suggesting that you spent $1000 in computer parts just to say, "Haha, I don't want to buy Crysis but it's not because I can't afford it"? Petty.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×